The Philosophy of Sex

This blogpost responded to an MSN article posted by Agent Michelle on facebook. http://lifestyle.xin.msn.com/en/sex-relationships/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4599644&page=9

In the article it says:


"It takes a lot of guts (for a guy/girl) to approach someone (girl/guy)."

This statement in the article above was true if there was internal conflict within an agent. If a man liked a woman and wanted her for himself, that was self-interest; but that conflicted with conservative Asian ideals of communal-based ethics and others before self, or altruism; presuming he was of traditional Asian socialization.

On the contrary it would take a lot of guts for a wide-minded American TO NOT APPROACH THE WOMAN OF HIS DREAMS!! WHY? Because western socialization has largely self-interest (or sometimes called individualism/egoism) as its flagship ethic, and someone brought up in that sort of environment could find it harder to rein in his/her individualist's urges in return for more altruistic or neutral ones.

Right here, people almost always talk about guys approaching girls with their guts; BUT WHY CAN'T IT BE GUYS NOT APPROACHING GIRLS WITH THEIR GUTS? Why must it only be gut-ful one way and un-gut-ful the other? Why? Why must we be so one-sided in our thinking when I think it TAKES THE MOST GUTS TO MASTER YOUR INSISTENT MATING INSTINCTS AND NOT APPROACH THE GIRL OF YOUR DREAMS, BECAUSE ANYWAY FOR MOST MEN MARRIED OR NOT, EVERY NEXT GIRL THEY SEE ALMOST ANYWHERE SOMEHOW FOREVER SEEMED TO BE THE GIRL OF THEIR DREAMS, and wasn't that the FUNDAMENTAL TREACHERY of the foundations of most marriages and relationships?

So there were in fact TWO issues I was talking about here; the first of which concerned why guts existed in the first place was due to internal conflict within an agent; second of which concerned the perspectives on guts in approaching the opposite sex.

For if an agent was a student of a certain agency or ethic, he would hardly find it gut-wrenching to undertake that agency or ethic simply because it has been interiorized! In the USA, I supposed it was easier or less frightful/gut-ful for a prospective suitor to approach the girl of his dreams because doing so was applaudable self-interest or ethical/rational egoism. In American society, these lop-sided philosophical values were religiously and sometimes insiduously taught into homes, schools, and offices, precisely because there was NO SIGNIFICANT MODERATION WITH SOME OTHER COUNTER-VALUE SUCH AS ALTRUISM AND THE LIKE. There could only be true virtue and hence successful interaction, professional or not, when it is the master virtue of the moderation of all the other virtues. That master virtue WAS AND MUST HAVE BEEN JUSTICE!!!( A separate response was made on this in one of the other topics on standard communication below this one)

So then, that would mean that any male body, westerner or asian, was bound to have gut issues when approaching any female body, westerner or asian respectively; simply because nobody could ever achieve perfect moderation or a resolution of all virtuous conflicts. Conflict would bound to still exist though to different prejudices; for Asian men, the internal conflict will be biased with conservative asian values of altruism or others before self; on the flipside, westerner men's would be biased with individualism/egoism.

In general, the key point just made above here was that every body of culture or agent GENERALLY contain and produce ALL THE SAME FUNDAMENTAL TYPES OF ETHICS AND VIRTUES, ONLY TO DIFFERENT DEGREES AND BIAS.

At the end of it all, what was I really trying to address here?

First of all, feeling that you required some rejuvenation to approach the opposite sex was both good and bad, implicit of the moderation and conflict argument. Good because good living and life consists of occasional rushes of adrenalin, testosterone or estrogen, as much as it was heart-breaking episodes; bad because these events of life threaten emotional equilibrium. Ironically, they were the ones that DEFINED THE DEGREE AND BIAS OF CONFLICT WITHIN AGENTS, and thereby good in some ways because the agent only knew his/her emotional and ethical susceptibilities/conflicts when it got thrown off equilibrium during the periods such as when his/her emotions welled up when he/she saw the girl/guy of his/her dreams; while the emotional and ethical were always jointly exhaustive. The following degree, intensity and nature of the gut-ful feeling when approaching the opposite sex would be indicative of conflict's as well.

Beyond all these, if any body would approach the opposite sex Zen-like, he/she was deified! Men and women must have always felt and needed the guts because the allure of deity of the opposite sex was strong enough to conceptualize the internal conflict within themselves.

However, I would least expect anybody knew what I was trying to put forth here, all of which were informed in by now old school philosophy, psychology, sociology, anthropology or otherwise, but most specially the first one.




But cheers any way!